Re: gcc default for amd64 (Re: Bug#250174: gcc-3.3: Miscompilation of Objective-C code on amd64.)
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:59:41AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Why should we not go into sid within the next days? what is keeping us
> out of it?
Well, the mirrors are getting restructered to allow for less-than-all
architectures to be mirrored. Then, consensus seemed to be that amd64
would only go in after sarge. I don't pretend I know everything on this
issue, though :)
> Will sarge really release by the end of next month?
Nobody knows right now.
> If I look into the RC-bugs list, I don't think so. D-I made
> significant improvements, though.
The RC-bug list is not that important, as long as we can just drop the
offending packages. Indeed, d-i seems to be going along quite nicely,
with a first release candidate scheduled for the end of May.
*But*, there are non-technical issues holding up the sarge release as
well, most notably binary-only firmware and non-free documentation. It
is not clear whether those have to be removed before the release or not.
> So what keeps us out of sarge?
We'd have to be in sid first.
> Facing the debian release cycle, if we will have to wait 2 years for
> sarge+1 with amd64 included, we will not have may users left in the end.
Sure, I think the same.
Probably the best thing to do is to have d-i working for amd64 and a
very stable toolchain, plus a lot of packages built. I'm not quite sure
what the next step would be though.
Something good and neutral would be to post a 'We're done. This, this
and that works. What about the mirrors?'-mail to -devel. If somebody is
bold enough, he might even try -devel-announce, but then everything has
to be perfect.
It all boils down to whether sarge will release soon or not I guess.
But anyway, it would be trivial to produce a 'Custom Debian
Distribution' featuring amd64 and advocate it publically, once
everything is in place expect the ftp.debian.org.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Reply to: